1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF NETFLIX’S MOTION TO DISMISS ANTITRUST COUNTERCLAIMS AND
TO STRIKE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES OF UNENFORCEABILITY AND PATENT MISUSE
Case No. C 06 2361 WHA
376520.01
KEKER & VAN NEST, LLP
JEFFREY R. CHANIN - #103649
DARALYN J. DURIE - #169825
KEVIN T. REED - #240799
710 Sansome Street
San Francisco, CA 94111-1704
Telephone: (415) 391-5400
Facsimile: (415) 397-7188
Attorneys for Plaintiff
NETFLIX, INC.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
NETFLIX, INC., a Delaware corporation,
Plaintiff,
v.
BLOCKBUSTER, INC., a Delaware
corporation, DOES 1-50,
Defendant.
Case No. C 06 2361 WHA
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING
PLAINTIFF NETFLIX’S MOTION TO
DISMISS BLOCKBUSTER’S
ANTITRUST COUNTERCLAIMS AND
TO STRIKE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
OF UNENFORCEABILITY AND
PATENT MISUSE
Date: August 17, 2006
Time: 8:00 a.m.
Judge: Hon. William Alsup
Case 3:06-cv-02361-WHA Document 23 Filed 07/06/2006 Page 1 of 2
Netflix, Inc. v. Blockbuster, Inc.
Doc. 23
Dockets.Justia.com
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF NETFLIX’S MOTION TO DISMISS ANTITRUST COUNTERCLAIMS AND
TO STRIKE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES OF UNENFORCEABILITY AND PATENT MISUSE
CASE NO. C 06 2361 WHA
376520.01
Plaintiff Netflix, Inc.’s motion to dismiss Defendant’s First and Second Counterclaims
and to strike Defendant’s Second and Third affirmative defenses came on for hearing before this
Court on August 17, 2006, at _____ a.m. before the Honorable William Alsup, United States
District Court, San Francisco, California, with all parties having appeared through counsel.
The Court having reviewed the request, and after consideration of the opposition and
reply papers, arguments of counsel, and all other matters presented to the Court, IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED:
Plaintiff Netflix, Inc.’s motion to dismiss i